Horse Race: “Electing” a Michigan Governor
In 19th century Ireland, horse races provided the dream that any impoverished farmer could turn his life around on a single flyer: a fast horse entered in the county steeplechase. But the reality was different. Front runners would turn up mysteriously lame just a day or two before the race. Other horses were “nobbled” with drugged corn or carrots. On the day of the race, a tavern owner or merchant with enough money to buy a horse on the spot might be coaxed into purchasing an exciting last-minute entry: an old horse made young with boot blacking and a meal of botanical performance enhancers that wore off fast. All this drew attention and the heavy betting away from the real favorite: a horse owned by one of the wealthy landowners.
And of course, the wealthy landowner’s horse always won.
The horse didn’t matter. The backers did. And that’s why, even though our state primaries aren’t until August 3, this race has been run. Pete Hoekstra is going to be our next governor.
How can we tell? All the signs are there. First of all, Hoekstra isn’t talking much. At the Mackinac Policy Conference, he said very little, less than the other candidates. When an attempt was made in April to pin him down on the Arizona immigration law, he hedged and took a “let’s wait and see” tack. Last year, he danced around whether or not he supported school vouchers. Opening up a little more in his infamous “the terrorists will get us” fundraising letter, Hoekstra noted, “I am running for Governor to bring conservative leadership to Lansing. I will fight every day to lower taxes, create jobs and stand up for our shared values.”
The point is, he doesn’t really have to speak out right now. His backers are lined up, he’s leading in the polls, and his rigidly far-right-wing voting record (which has won him supporters like the hate group FAIR) remains largely unexamined by most voters.
Hoekstra’s slipperiness at this point in the campaign lets him appear as a blank slate, in order to attract the most voters. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, his backers are writing checks.
If you look at a list of Hoekstra’s early individual contributors, the big names are lining up: Van Andel. Meijer. Bauer. Cook. Along with a healthy dollop of support from Blue Cross-Blue Shield, looking to wriggle out of its mandated role as the nonprofit which must accept all Michigan applicants. BCBS is joined by other corporations such as Morgan Stanley, Spectrum Health, Fifth Third Bank, and the Michigan Credit Union League.
When Hoekstra wins the primary, much of the contributions that are pouring into the Michigan Republican Party coffers will be at his disposal. When he ran for Congress, he also had the full support of the DeVos family and the Prince empire, so it’s hard to imagine they won’t be throwing considerable financial weight behind him in this race. In fact, Open Secrets recently reported that Hoekstra has already received over $25,000 in contributions from Amway.
Another nobbling tool that just fell into the hands of those looking to fix our elections was January’s Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission. It lifted a ban on political spending by corporations in elections. Companies that want to protect their interests—like insurance corporations looking to find loopholes in recent health care reform laws and heavy industries that want environmental restrictions lifted—can now contribute as much money as they want to the candidate that they believe will give them the desired results. And for Michigan governor, that would be Hoekstra.
Our dream of free elections in this country is, at this point in history, as much of a delusion as those dreams of Irish farmers that they’d win the county steeplechase race. Until working people join together and overturn the election system with essential, grassroot changes, we’ll continue in our current reality. We have no say in our elections and no representation in government. We live in a country controlled by powers capable of ordering the Supreme Court to halt vote-counting and place George W. Bush on the presidential throne.
The Michigan governor’s race is a much simpler fix. The favorite, a shiny-faced frat boy from Hope College, has already proved in Congress that he’ll do the bidding of his conservative masters. He’s as good as crossed the finish line because that’s what the wealthy landowners in our part of the world have decided will happen.
Who are the candidates talking to?
Today, the Grand Rapids Press ran a front-page article about yesterday’s Gubernatorial candidate debate during the Mackinac Policy Conference, which took place on Mackinac Island.
The article followed the usual election coverage format, with about half the content on candidates making verbal jabs and the other half devoted to candidate positions on the state budget, business tax and gas tax. In other words, nothing new was shared by candidates that the public has not already heard.
What was more interesting about this article was the fact that this was yet another debate hosted by the business sector. The Detroit Regional Chamber of Commerce hosted this debate as part of their 3-day policy conference held each year on the Great Lakes island.
The conference featured sessions on topics such as Michigan’s economy, Michigan as a trade portal, investing in commercial health care, education reform, Michigan’s prisons, and the shift from traditional industry to high tech. Virtually every panelist for these sessions were from the business and private sectors, with only one labor representative.
There were also panels that featured “business and legislative leaders,” as well as a “conservation” session featureing Michigan members of Congress. The day also features several keynote speakers such as Newt Gingrich, US Secretary of Health & Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, Sergio Marchionne with the Chrysler Group LLC and Valentino Castellani, a former Mayor of Turin, Italy.
The policy conference was funded by corporate sponsors such as AT&T, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Meijer, Chase Bank, DTE Energy, Dow Chemical and a whole host of other businesses representing the commercial health, banking and insurance sectors.
The point of all this is to say that the Gubernatorial debate took place within the context of this 3-day business conference, which featured “300 attendees who were charged a $200 contribution to the chamber’s political action committee.” It seems that the participation of the candidates was to win over elite sectors of the state, sectors that can provide significant financial support for any candidate, which agrees to represent their interests.
The real story of the debate was not so much what the candidates said, but who was in the audience and what interests they represent.
(This article by Jeff Biggers is re-posted from Common Dreams.)
As President Obama makes his third trip to the Gulf today to assess the worst crude oil spill in American history, residents in the coalfields can’t help but sympathize with the stricken area.
In 24 states across the country, coalfield citizens have been living with area watersheds contaminated by toxic coal slurry and coal ash for decades. Thousands of miles of streams have been jammed and sullied with coal waste from strip-mining and mountaintop removal operations.
But it’s the magnitude of the massive coal slurry impoundments and dams hovering above communities in the mountains of the Appalachian coalfields that bring home the sickening images of the Gulf oil spill.
“After watching the disaster unfold in the Gulf with 20-40 million gallons of oil already spilled,” says Bo Webb, in Naoma, West Virginia, “I cannot begin to imagine what would happen to our Coal River Valley if the 9 billion gallon sludge dam above us failed.”
Webb is referring to the Brushy Fork impoundment, the largest and potentially weakest coal slurry impoundment in the nation operated by Massey. According to Massey’s own evacuation reports, a break in the class “C” coal slurry impoundment would result in certain injury or death for the nearly 1,000 residents downslope in the valley. Some area residents would have less than 15 minutes to escape a 72-foot tidal wave of coal slurry.
We’re talking about billions of gallons of coal sludge here, not millions.
Despite pleas and protests by local residents, Massey Energy is operating a reckless strip mine near the Bee Tree branch of Coal River Mountain, blasting outrageously close to the multi-billion gallon coal slurry impoundment that is held back by a weakened earthen dam.
Webb’s concerns are not unfounded. Ten years ago, millions of gallons of toxic coal sludge broke through a similar impoundment at another Massey operation in eastern Kentucky. The worst environmental catastrophe in the US until the TVA coal ash pond disaster, the Martin County spill at the Massey site dumped over 300 million tons of toxic sludge into 100 miles of streams, contaminating the water supplies for 27,000 people, and wiping out 1.6 million fish.
Here is a clip from that coal spill that remained under the news media radar:
In the meantime, coalfield residents from Alaska to Wyoming are wondering if it will take a disaster on the level of the BP oil spill to get the Obama administration to deal with the unfolding disasters of coal slurry impoundments, coal ash ponds, and reckless strip-mining.
The Arab-American Association of West Michigan (AAWM), in conjunction with protests around the world, is calling for a rally this Monday (June 7) to condemn the Israeli attack on the Freedom Flotilla, which was bringing humanitarian aid to Gaza.
The Press Release that AAWM sent out states:
“The Arab-American Association of West Michigan will host a rally in front of the Gerald R. Ford Federal building on Monday, June 7 at 5pm to condemn the recent Israeli assault of a flotilla bringing humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza.
The Israeli assault violates International Law and is morally reprehensible, especially since those on board the flotilla were non-violent activists on a humanitarian mission. This humanitarian mission was of vital importance because the people living in Gaza have been suffering from lack of food and medical supplies due to the Israeli blockade of Gaza since 2007 and the 2008/2009 Israeli military assault on Gaza.
The Arab-American Association of West Michigan and dozens of local supporters call for a full investigation into these crimes, an end to the Israeli blockade of Gaza, and the suspension of all US aid to Israel until these crimes are fully investigated.
We are inviting the public to join us on Monday, June 7 at 5pm to take a stand against these atrocities and join millions of people around the world who have already condemned these actions.”
One reason that the group thinks it is important for Americans to speak out on this issue is because of the massive aid ($3 billion annually) the US government provides Israel, as well as weapons, some of which were used in this most recent attack on the Freedom Flotilla.
(This article is a re-posting from the Center for Responsive Politics and Public Citizen.)
Organizations in the financial services sector have deployed at least 1,447 former federal employees to lobby Congress and federal agencies since the beginning of 2009, according to a joint analysis of federal disclosure records and other data released today by Public Citizen and the Center for Responsive Politics. (Download the full report here: FinancialRevolvingDoors.pdf )
This small army of registered financial services sector lobbyists includes at least 73 former members of Congress, of whom 17 served on the banking committees of either the U.S. House of Representatives or the Senate. At least 66 industry lobbyists worked for these committees as staffers, while 82 additional lobbyists once worked for congressional members who currently serve on these key committees.
Further, at least 42 financial services lobbyists formerly served in some capacity in the U.S. Treasury Department. At least seven served in the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, including two former comptrollers.
“Wall Street hires former members of Congress and their staff for a reason,” said David Arkush, director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division. “These people are influential because they have personal relationships with current members and staff. It’s hard to say no to your friends, but that’s what Congress needs to do. Listening to them would result in a bill that would fail to get the job done and would disappoint the American people.”
Added Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, “Companies pay a premium for lobbyists who’ve spun through the revolving door because it can be a small price to pay relative to the huge payoff if they can shape legislation. These lobbyists tap insider knowledge and personal relationships, knowing that their old friends and former co-workers won’t want to let them down.”
Prominent former congressional members now lobbying on behalf of financial services sector interests include two former Senate majority leaders (Bob Dole, R-Kan., and Trent Lott, R-Miss.), two former House majority leaders (Dick Armey, R-Texas, and Dick Gephardt, D-Mo.) and a former speaker of the House (Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.).
The analysis is drawn from lobbying disclosure information filed with the secretary of the Senate, as well as the Center for Responsive Politics’ data.
The report includes an appendix listing each industry lobbyist who previously worked for the federal government, as well as tables listing former members of Congress, former staffers for the banking committees and lobbyists who previously worked for current banking committee members.
Yes, Obama is “Engaged” – in a Colossal Crime
(The article by Glen Ford is re-posted from Black Agenda Report.)
In a rational polity, the great abomination to Earth and Man in the Gulf would spell the end of the Obama presidency. We are witnessing cataclysm on a geological scale, an event with the potential to alter planetary destiny, precipitated not by the three hundred million year arc of wayward comets or the incremental slide of continent-molding tectonic plates, but by the routine exercise of corporate power in the United States.
The man in charge of the government that both permitted and abetted the heinous corporate crime (“Drill, baby, drill!”) should, by all rights, be in terminal disgrace. Instead, much of Obama’s “base” behaves as if the First Black President is an innocent party – a victim of circumstances – rather than a facilitator of the corporate enterprise that has spawned the Mother of all Pollutions. But then, Teflon is a petrochemical product.
Any meaningful discussion of the oceanic version of Chernobyl would challenge a political system in which huge corporations are empowered to seek profits with absolutely no regard for the consequences to Earth or Man. Viewed from that angle – the only sane perspective – questions of whether Obama is fully or only partially “engaged” are ludicrously ill-framed. Engaged in what, in subduing and caging the corporate animals that are defecating in humanity’s only nest? Clearly not: BP is the operative government in the Gulf, with the Coast Guard as its muscle. BP is also the surgeon in charge of mending the Earth’s wound and preventing the spread of septicemia in its life-sustaining fluids – the equivalent of Jack The Ripper tending to his own victims. Under such circumstances, the more Obama assures us he is “engaged,” the greater his confessed complicity in the crime.
For purposes of assigning culpability, Obama was fully engaged in setting the stage for the atrocity from the moment of his campaign reversal on off-shore drilling in August, 2008 – after he had the nomination locked up. “My interest is in making sure we’ve got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices,” said candidate Obama. “If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well-thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage — I don’t want to be so rigid that we can’t get something done.” So Obama bent over like a contortionist to pleasure the oil barons.
The full scope of Obama’s “compromise” was announced almost two years later, on March 31. The White House gave Big Oil virtually everything it wanted that was politically possible, with no protections for the public or Mother Earth in the form of a “well-thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage.”
“The federal government is fully engaged and I am fully engaged,” said Obama, last week. OK, we’ll accept that he has been engaged in furthering the oil industry’s plans to drill at depths at which current technology makes mistakes irreparable – as the damage from the current ecological holocaust is already irreparable.
Obama has been engaged in killing the planet, in concert with his corporate co-conspirators. He did nothing more than cosmetic changes at the federal Minerals Management Service, which Obama finally admitted, at last week’s press conference, “had been plagued by corruption for years” and had a “scandalously close relationship” with Big Oil.
The unbroken chain of “corruption” at the agency in both Bush and Obama administrations is one small expression of the continuity of actual rule of the country by sometimes feuding cousins in Big Oil and Wall Street and the Military Industrial Complex – the permanent government. Obama is “engaged” as their servant, like his predecessors in the Oval Office.
The corporate cousins have raised the stakes of the game. It’s either them or Earth itself. When history passes its verdict on the current era, she will not assign much import to the advent of the First Black President of the United States. Rather, history will mark 2010 as the year a servile political operative in the White House exposed the seabed to deep defilement by the oil colossus, from which the world never fully recovered.
Former President George W. Bush was is Grand Rapids yesterday to speak at the annual dinner of the Economics Club of Grand Rapids. Bush requested no media at the event, no pictures and no videotaping.
The three local TV stations did stories from the lobby of the downtown convention center site, where Bush spoke to a sold out audience. Channel 13 mentioned that some area politicians were present and did a short interview with State Senator Bill Hardiman.
WXMI 17 talked with Pete Seechia, Congressman Vern Ehlers, State Representative Roy Schmidt and an area student, all of which talked about the event but said nothing about what Bush talked about in his speech. At the end of the story, the channel 17 reporter said that one person they talked to said that Bush, “was very interesting and very funny.”
WOOD TV 8 did not speak with anyone who attended the event, but they did make mention that they were the only TV station to film the former President’s motorcade as it arrived, which of course has nothing to do with journalism.
Unlike the TV stations the Grand Rapids Press paid the $175 per person fee to get into the event. The article by Press reporter Ted Roelofs was not very long.
The reporter identified four things that Bush addressed. First, Bush confessed that he tortured (water-boarded) Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, whom Bush claimed was the “master-mind” behind the 9/11 attacks. Bush said, “I’d do it again to save lives.” However, Bush is not cited as provided any evidence that his administration’s use of torture saved any lives or prevented further attacks against the US and the Press reporter doesn’t question the former President’s assertion.
Second, Bush states, “Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do and the world is a better place without him.” Getting rid of Saddam, however, was not the reason the Bush administration gave for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, rather it was to find and destroy Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). Again the reporter accepts the claim without question or verification. Numerous political analysts, such as Patrick Cockburn, have pointed out that the standard of living for most Iraqis is worse now than under Saddam Hussein and that the US invasion/occupation has resulted in over 1 million dead Iraqis.
The only other points that Bush made was that he prayed a lot and has decided not to publicly criticize President Obama.
How unfortunate for people who read the Grand Rapids Press that for $175 all we got was a weak report on what a former President said, especially since Bush is considered by many to have been a war criminal.
Reporting Israeli Assault Through Israel’s Eyes
(This Media Alert is re-posted from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.)
On May 31, the Israeli military attacked a flotilla of boats full of civilians attempting to deliver humanitarian supplies to the Gaza Strip. Reports indicate that at least nine and as many as 16 of the activists on board were killed, though details remain sketchy due to Israel’s censorious limitations on media coverage. Much of the U.S. media coverage has been remarkably unskeptical of Israel’s account of events and their context, and has paid little regard to international law.
The New York Times (6/1/10) glossed over the facts of the devastating Israeli siege of Gaza, where 1.5 million people live in extreme poverty. As reporter Isabel Kershner wrote, “Despite sporadic rocket fire from the Palestinian territory against southern Israel, Israel says it allows enough basic supplies through border crossings to avoid any acute humanitarian crisis.”
Asking Israel to explain the effects of its embargo on the people of Gaza makes little sense, especially when there are plenty of other resources available. The U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported (IRIN, 5/18/10):
As a consequence of Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip, 98 percent of industrial operations have been shut down since 2007 and there are acute shortages of fuel, cash, cooking gas and other basic supplies….
Water-related health problems are widespread in the Strip because of the blockade and Israel’s military operation in Gaza, which destroyed water and sanitation infrastructure, including reservoirs, wells, and thousands of kilometres of piping….
Chronic malnutrition has risen in Gaza over the past few years to reach 10.2 percent….
In Gaza, Israel’s blockade is debilitating the healthcare system, limiting medical supplies and the training of medical personnel and preventing serious medical cases from travelling outside the Strip for specialized treatment.
Israel’s 2008-2009 military operation damaged 15 of the Strip’s 27 hospitals and damaged or destroyed 43 of its 110 primary healthcare facilities, none of which have been repaired or rebuilt because of the construction materials ban. Some 15-20 percent of essential medicines are commonly out of stock and there are shortages of essential spare parts for many items of medical equipment.
Those facts, though, aren’t persuasive to everyone. The Washington Post‘s June 1 editorial page had one of the most appalling takes on the killings: “We have no sympathy for the motives of the participants in the flotilla–a motley collection that included European sympathizers with the Palestinian cause, Israeli Arab leaders and Turkish Islamic activists.”
Many of the analysis pieces in major papers focused on the fallout for Israel and the United States, rather than the civilians killed or the humanitarian crisis they were trying to address. The Post‘s Glenn Kessler (6/1/10) framed the U.S. response, not the Israeli attack, as the complicating factor: “Condemnation of Israeli Assault Complicates Relations With U.S.” Kessler lamented, “The timing of the incident is remarkably bad for Israel and the United States,” while a Los Angeles Times account (6/1/10) called the raid “a public relations nightmare for Israel.” The New York Times‘ Kershner wrote (NYTimes.com, 5/31/10) that “the criticism [of Israel over the attack] offered a propaganda coup to Israel’s foes, particularly the Hamas group that holds sway in Gaza.”
Other news accounts presented misleading context about the circumstances leading to Israel’s blockade. Kershner (New York Times, 6/1/10) stressed that “Israel had vowed not to let the flotilla reach the shores of Gaza, where Hamas, an organization sworn to Israel’s destruction, took over by force in 2007.” The Associated Press (6/1/10) reported that “Israel and Egypt sealed Gaza’s borders after Hamas overran the territory in 2007, wresting control from Abbas-loyal forces”–the latter a reference to Fatah forces affiliated with Mahmoud Abbas.
Both accounts ignore the fact that Hamas won Palestinian elections in 2006, which led the United States and Israel to step up existing economic restrictions on Gaza. An attempt to stoke a civil war in Gaza by arming Fatah militants–reported extensively by David Rose in Vanity Fair (4/08)–backfired, and Hamas prevailed (Extra!, 9-10/07).
Much of the U.S. press coverage takes Israeli government claims at face value, and is based largely on footage made available by Israeli authorities–while Israel keeps the detained activists away from the media (not to mention from lawyers and worried family members). The Washington Post (6/1/10) reported the attack this way:
Upon touching down, the Israeli commandos, who were equipped with paint guns and pistols, were assaulted with steel poles, knives and pepper spray. Video showed at least one commando being lifted up and dumped from the ship’s upper deck to the lower deck. Some commandos later said they jumped into the water to escape being beaten. The Israeli military said some of the demonstrators fired live ammunition. Israeli officials said the activists had fired two guns stolen from the troops.
As Salon.com‘s Glenn Greenwald wrote (5/31/10): “Just ponder what we’d be hearing if Iran had raided a humanitarian ship in international waters and killed 15 or so civilians aboard.”
The Times‘ June 1 report included seven paragraphs of Israel’s account of what happened on board the Turkish ship, the Mavi Marmara, where the civilians were killed; the paper reported that “There were no immediate accounts available from the passengers of the Turkish ship” because the Israeli base they were taken to “was off limits to the news media and declared a closed military zone.”
The Times piece also showed little interest in international law, mentioning Israel’s claim regarding the legality of their actions but providing no analysis from any international law experts to support or debunk the claim: “Israeli officials said that international law allowed for the capture of naval vessels in international waters if they were about to violate a blockade.”
According to Craig Murray (5/31/10), former British ambassador and specialist on maritime law, the legal position “is very plain”: “To attack a foreign flagged vessel in international waters is illegal. It is not piracy, as the Israeli vessels carried a military commission. It is rather an act of illegal warfare.”
Arizona Is No Joke — Tell Clear Channel to Apologize
(This Media Alert is a re-posting from the National Council of La Raza.)
You might have already heard, but last week a local radio station in Columbus, Ohio, WTVN-AM, took the debate over Arizona’s new law too far.
Apparently they weren’t happy that the mayor of Columbus, Michael Coleman, recently decided to ban city employees from visiting Arizona on official business in protest of the new law. So the radio station responded by launching a contest in which the “winner” received a free trip to Phoenix, Arizona “to spend a weekend chasing aliens and spending cash in the desert.” Check out the promotional image for the contest below.
Make sure to bring your green card? Really? Is that funny?
This contest has triggered considerable outrage in Latino communities in Ohio, Arizona, and other states throughout the nation. NCLR released a statement on Friday calling on WTVN-AM and its parent company, Clear Channel Communications, to apologize for the station’s contest. NCLR President and CEO Janet Murguía said in this statement that “the passage of SB 1070 has provoked a lot of reprehensible anti-Latino and anti-immigrant rhetoric, but a radio station bankrolling someone to ‘hunt’ human beings for sport represents a new low. The owners and directors of WTVN might think that this is all in good fun, but what is happening to Latinos — citizen, legal, and undocumented alike — in Arizona is no joke. We are asking for an immediate and unequivocal apology from the station and its parent company.”
If you are as outraged as we are, join us in sending letters to both the management of WTVN in Columbus and executives at Clear Channel and ask them to apologize for this irresponsible contest.
Thank you for joining us in telling WTVN and Clear Channel that Arizona is no joke!
Polling the Governor’s race
The Grand Rapids Press posted a short story today on new polling data for the Michigan Governor’s race. The poll was conducted by a North Carolina-based company called Public Policy Polling.
Based on their client list, the polling organization doesn’t seem to have any overt partisan biases. However, the polling they conducted only spoke with 377 likely republicans and 314 likely Democratic voters, a small number, which makes the polling data less credible.
The article does not provide readers with the actual language of the poll, so we don’t know what question(s) those polled were asked. We do know the data, which shows that Rick Snyder polled highest amongst likely GOP voters and Virg Bernero was first among likely Democratic voters.
However, this included people who called themselves independents, so when they talked to straight republic voters Pete Hoekstra topped the poll. That distinction make the headline of the story a bit misleading, since it says that Snyder was leading all Republicans, which one could argue is not true, based on what was said in the article.
The only person sourced in the story was a staff member of the polling company who said, “Voters really aren’t tuned into the governor’s race yet. The numbers could change a lot as the candidates become better known.” This comment begs the question how a pollster who only talked to only 700 likely voters can know what most Michigan voters are tuned into, especially since the polling company is not based in Michigan.
The article also does not say who paid the polling company to conduct the poll. Often those paying for the poll are candidates or political parties who want to pump up their own numbers. But polls are often paid for by news agencies as a way to try to generate better ratings or increase news interest with horse-race polling, where there is nothing more than numbers and no information about issues or candidate platforms.
Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy 